get_touch_stats

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description states it is a 'pure read' and provides a privacy guarantee, which is sufficient for a non-destructive tool. It does not cover authentication or rate limits, but that is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured with clear sections (main description, returns, USE WHEN, BEHAVIOR, PARAMETERS). Every sentence adds value without repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity, the description covers the return values, parameter details, and behavioral aspects. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to detail return format.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter 'hours' is explained with its meaning ('lookback window'), range (1-24), and default (1), adding significant value beyond the bare schema (which had no description).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool returns aggregate keyboard and mouse activity stats over a period, listing specific metrics. While it references a sibling tool for privacy, it does not explicitly distinguish when to use this tool versus get_recent_touch_events.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'USE WHEN' section explicitly lists use cases (activity reports, idle detection, fatigue tracking). However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.